Writ Petition Dismissed for Existence of Alternative Statutory Remedy Under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Order.

The petitioner, a PDS (Public Distribution System) licensee for Panchayat Goshwari, challenged an order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh.

The impugned order cancelled the petitioner's License No. 64 of 2017 on the grounds that his show-cause reply was unsatisfactory and lacked evidentiary support.

The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition seeking restoration of the license.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedies available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to file a delayed representation/appeal before the appropriate authority despite the expiration of the limitation period.

Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(iii), which mandates an appeal to the District Officer within thirty days for license cancellation.

Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, regarding the condonation of delay in filing representations before statutory authorities.

The court observed that the petitioner had a clear alternative remedy under the 2016 Control Order.

While Section 32(iii) directs appeals to the District Magistrate, the court noted that since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own orders in an appellate capacity; thus, it directed the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner instead.

Regarding the lapse of the limitation period, the court accepted the petitioner's intent to file a representation and determined that the interests of justice required a direction to the authority to entertain the plea on merits rather than dismissing it on technical delays.

The Court directed the petitioner to file a representation/application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month. The authority was ordered to condone the delay, consider all pleas and material evidence, and dispose of the matter within three months of filing. All interlocutory applications were closed.